What the media is doing is much like the traditional blood libels of medieval Europe. Where the ‘voice of authority’ declares that one group or person is responsible for a wrongdoing without any proof, then whips up the townsfolk into a rage... leading to tragedy. Back then, that was usually a clergyman, but now it's the media.
But like you said, it is escalatory. And that's the whole point. The liberal media will *NOT* be able to refuse the bait and they *WILL* run with her comments. So they'll not be able to spin up new ‘blood libels’, but instead try to refute *HER* points. And once you get a political enemy talking about *YOUR* ideas, *YOUR* agenda... you are already halfway to victory.
Why Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel' is a great thing
On the other hand, Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term "blood libel" should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion -- about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis -- will serve to enlighten and inform.The author says that by mis-using the term, it might remind Christians of our history of murdering jews, and that would be a good thing.
...
I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.